Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: AXFR clarify

From: Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:49:24 -0500

At 12:45 2002-11-17, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>Gudmundsson writes:
> > DNSEXT has completed it's review of this document and requests that
> > it be advanced to Proposed standard.
>
>Excuse me? When did that happen? The document is highly controversial.
>The conclusion of the July meeting was ``Not ready to go: axfr-clarify,
>too bind specific.'' There were no subsequent public discussions.

Highly controversial is  relative term, few individuals do not make a
document "controversial".
As for the no public discussion that is answered in following
email to namedroppers:
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg02116.html

Where Randy explains that he had technical doubts if it was unnecessarily
overly-definitive document, after off-line technical discussions with me
and others he removed his hold.
The minutes from Yokohama could be better on what else he said.

We both knew your position when we forwarded the document to the
area director.

>In fact, it's even worse than that: this so-called ``clarification'' is
>specific to _BIND 9_. It imposes requirements incompatible with BIND 8,
>djbdns, and probably a bunch more widely deployed servers.
>
>http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html gives detailed explanations of
>my ten objections to this document. To summarize:
>
>   * ``Timeline'': This document obviously does not have consensus. This
>      is the fourth time that Gudmundsson has tried to ram this document
>      through the process by misrepresenting the WG discussions.

With only you objecting to the document and number of members of the
working supporting it, how can we as WG chairs draw other conclusion that
there is a rough consensus?
Anyway the document is being forwarded to the IESG for review and
they will issue a IETF last call where you and others that object to
the document can restate your case.

The following message refutes all your points better than I can
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg01885.html

Your understanding of 1034 disagrees with some other implementors.
Your understanding of 1034 does make it impossible to implement IXFR.

My message to namedroppers was to the point WG agrees this document is
a good thing, and that there are some dissenters from the consensus
of the WG.
Dan, no-one has veto power in the work of the IETF your childish
behavior and outbursts do not harm anyone but yourself and the
valid technical points you attempt to make.

         Olafur

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Dec 2002 08:58:22 -0000

DNSEXT chair Olafur Gudmundsson, who has been paid for BIND work, writes:
> only you objecting to the document 

There have been public objections from Aaron Swartz, Felix von Leitner,
Len Budney, Kenji Rikitake, Dean Anderson, Sam Trenholme (MaraDNS
implementor), and of course me (djbdns implementor)---plus an unknown
number of people whose messages to namedroppers have been silently
discarded by Randy Bush.

Meanwhile, axfr-clarify is being pushed primarily by people with
financial interests in BIND. The Yokohama minutes say ``too bind
specific'' with no hint of any dispute about that, and the Atlanta
minutes don't indicate any further discussion.

What's most damning, of course, is the simple fact that the objections
are being ignored. http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html explains in
detail what's wrong with the BIND company's arguments; the BIND company
responds by repeating the arguments and ignoring the objections.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:53:28 +0100

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:58:22AM -0000,
 D. J. Bernstein <[email-masked]> wrote 

> DNSEXT chair Olafur Gudmundsson, who has been paid for BIND work, writes:

For me, this is too much.

For those who use procmail:

:0
* ^From:.*D. J. Bernstein
/dev/null

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:33:57 -0500

> For me, this is too much.

Now, on the *one* hand, I'd be surprised indeed if the chair of DNSEXT had NOT
been paid by somebody to do BIND consulting somewhere along the line.

On the other hand, if Olafur is in fact making a living doing BIND9
development and coding for ISC or one of their clients, that might be
called a "conflict of interest" when the issue at hand is that a specific
document is "too BIND9 specific".

Personally, I'm OK with Olafur making money doing BIND.  I'm even OK on him
possibly making more if the draft becomes an RFC in its current state.  I
admit I've looked through RFC2026 and found nothing about disclosure of
conflict of interest(*).  I hate making more work for the AD and IESG, but
I think at least a "We've talked to Olafur and do/dont think there's a
problem" is called for.

(*) I'll let wiser people than I decide if there should be such a section
in a son-of-2026....
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:14:16 -0800

Please god NO...

I hope EVERYONE deeply involved in a WG documentation process has deep
DEEP conflict of interest problems.  I mean if we are not working on the
things we are documenting, how will we know if they work or not.  Saying
that WG chairs can not work for companies that need the efforts of the
WG seems like setting up a big failure, there are checks and balances,
you don't like what the chairs of a WG are doing, talk to the ADs, don't
like what the ADs say go to the IAB... This is a documented process.

I do not know about the DNS WG, but most working groups that I am aware
of also have two co-chairs, usually from different companies/areas - and
I know that my co-chair and I have to be in agreement on "char"
descisions, reducing the effect of one of us having a massive conflict
of interest.

Please do not require conflict of interest rules to enter the IETF, this
isn't the government, we NEED this to work

Bill Strahm

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer
Cc: D. J. Bernstein; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: AXFR clarify 

> For me, this is too much.

Now, on the *one* hand, I'd be surprised indeed if the chair of DNSEXT
had NOT been paid by somebody to do BIND consulting somewhere along the
line.

On the other hand, if Olafur is in fact making a living doing BIND9
development and coding for ISC or one of their clients, that might be
called a "conflict of interest" when the issue at hand is that a
specific document is "too BIND9 specific".

Personally, I'm OK with Olafur making money doing BIND.  I'm even OK on
him possibly making more if the draft becomes an RFC in its current
state.  I admit I've looked through RFC2026 and found nothing about
disclosure of conflict of interest(*).  I hate making more work for the
AD and IESG, but I think at least a "We've talked to Olafur and do/dont
think there's a problem" is called for.

(*) I'll let wiser people than I decide if there should be such a
section in a son-of-2026....
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:03:10 -0500

> DEEP conflict of interest problems.

seems a bit of a stretch.  it's one thing to have an interest in producing
a technically sound outcome; quite another to have an interest in producing
a particular outcome even when it has technical problems.

Keith

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:03:48 -0500

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:14:16 PST, Bill Strahm said:
> things we are documenting, how will we know if they work or not.

Quite true. And I believe I said I'd be surprised if the WG chair didn't
make money at it....

>                                                                   Saying

I think that's what I did - if the AD or IESG says "We talked to Olafur and
there's nothing major" I'll be happy.  I'd even be OK with it if he had the
prospect of a $400K consulting contract if the draft goes a certain way - we've
certainly seen companies like Cisco have literally millions riding on a given
RFC, but it's rare that such information isn't known. I know when MIME and
ESMTP were being designed, everybody in the working group knew who had MUAs and
MTAs in the pipe, and they were usually quite clear on exactly how much a given
WG decision was going to cost in redesign/recoding.

I don't even see the need for a formal public disclosure process - but djb
*did* raise the point on the main IETF list, where probably most of the readers
*dont* know Olafur's situation, so at least *some* response is probably called
for.

Regarding RFC2026, it looks like section 6.5 and friends *do* address
the problem adequately *IF* you read the text in 6.5.1:

                                           ...  (b) the Working Group
   has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality
   and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant 
   jeopardy.  ...

as including allegations of conflict-of-interest.  If that's the understood
reading of it by the IESG, then I'm OK with 2026 as it stands...

/Valdis

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:51:54 -0800

Well just one person will not be able to create rough concensus, except
in a VERY small group.  Saying that someone MUST be wanting to produce
an inferior document because they were paid to create a product based on
the spec is not fair to any participants.  I claim that MANY, if not
MOST IETF participants are paid one way or another based on the
specifications that they are working on.

If a document has technical problems for the minority of participants
(i.e. the non-rough concensus) this doesn't mean there are technical
problems...

That said I have not heard of anyone who is told... You will get a
(large sum of money) if the draft you have written gets through the IETF
without any changes.  I would assume that anyone who took that as a
bonus stipulation, wasn't expecting to get paid...

I consider it part of my job to monitor the IETF and tell my employer
what I believe the decisions are going to be, what changes might be
coming, and how close to an RFC a given draft is.  

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: AXFR clarify 

> DEEP conflict of interest problems.

seems a bit of a stretch.  it's one thing to have an interest in
producing a technically sound outcome; quite another to have an interest
in producing a particular outcome even when it has technical problems.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 19:12:13 -0500

> specifications that they are working on.

are you really claiming that participants are paid differently based on 
whether their employers like the outcome of some IETF process?

> (i.e. the non-rough concensus) this doesn't mean there are technical

nor does rough consensus mean there are not technical problems.

> coming, and how close to an RFC a given draft is.
 
all fine, as long as when providing input to IETF you give your technical
opinion as to what is best for the Internet as a whole, rather than
what is best for your employer.  

Keith

---

From: "'Stephane Bortzmeyer'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:12:07 +0100

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:14:16PM -0800,
 Bill Strahm <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 64 lines which said:

> Saying that WG chairs can not work for companies that need the
> efforts of the WG seems like setting up a big failure,

Valdis did not suggest that we *forbid* people to work for companies
involved in the work of the WG they chair. Just that we ask them to
*disclose* such "potential conflicts of interest". (BTW, in the
present case, I do not think it has anything to do with a real
conflict of interest and everything to do with Bernstein's madness.)

To me, it is a very reasonable idea: it goes toward more transparency,
which is a good thing. The Internet is a big business now. We can no
longer assume that all IETF members are benevolent and disinterested
academics working only for the common good.

Disclaimer :-) I work for the French registry. We are members of the
BIND forum and therefore linked with ISC.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:46:46 -0500

On Thursday, Dec 19, 2002, at 06:12 America/Montreal, 'Stephane 
> BIND forum and therefore linked with ISC.

	I agree with the notion that all folks in positions of perceived power
(e.g. IAB, IESG, WG Chairs, IRTF Chair) should be required to disclose 
publicly
all of their relationships (e.g. employment, presence on other 
Internet-related
positions such as board of a registry, technical advisory board 
memberships,
and so forth) that might possibly be conflicts of interest.  The goal 
should be
to err on the side of too much disclosure, rather than too little.

	Marshall Rose did a good job of this when on IESG, though unfortunately
his precedent has not often been followed.

	Lack of such disclosure is currently a problem with the current
IETF/IESG/IAB structure.  I'm not generally a fan of more process or 
more
rules, but I think this one should be required not optional.

Ran
[email-masked]

PS:	None of this is related to any claims by djb.
PPS:	Practicing what I preach, I'll note that I work
	for Extreme Networks and am on the TABs of NetVMG and STV.

---

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:03:34 -0800 (PST)

> 	I agree with the notion that all folks in positions of perceived
> power (e.g. IAB, IESG, WG Chairs, IRTF Chair) should be required to
> disclose publicly all of their relationships (e.g. employment,
> presence on other Internet-related positions such as board of a
> registry, technical advisory board memberships, and so forth) that
> might possibly be conflicts of interest.  The goal should be to err on
> the side of too much disclosure, rather than too little.

I like that we have individuals at the ietf meetings rather than company
representatives, in the long run it creates less politics.

I don't think anyone who attempts to move drafts for financial gain will
ever gain much; these documents we develop here (less the informational
track) stand on their own.

-rick

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:04:40 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:

> ...

I am opposed to such a radical change.

The goal should be that, when necessary, actual problems demonstrated by
actions are addressed, not to indulge in the usual ever spiraling
increase in paperwork load and bureaucratic nonsense. No normal human
being can ever make a disclosure complete enough to withstand a
denial-of-service attack though the endless nit-picking of trivial
errors and omissions nor would any normal human being ever want to wade
through any of the diarrheal "too much disclosure" documents you
advocate.

They would, presumably, have to include details of all amorous
relationships and sexual acts performed with anyone who has any opinion
on matters before the IETF, since such acts can produce conflicts of
interest between sound technical judgment and a desire to please such
partners. And shouldn't they also be required to disclose all
"relationships that might be a conflict of interest" for all of their
relatives by blood or marriage?  After all, they might be indirectly
influence by such connections.

This is the same nonsense as demands that transcripts of all
communications on items before the IETF be made public, including
hallway conversations, telephone calls, etc., etc., etc.

> rules, but I think this one should be required not optional.

Members of the IESG and IAB are selected by the IETF community and
specifically undertake to act in the best interests of the IETF
community. If they were proven not to be acting so, based on specific
actions, not vague handwaving about conflicts, they can be removed.
That's enough for me.  Someone who was a fan of more process, paperwork,
and rules would certainly advocate total disclosure, which is only an
inviation to add endless debate about the completeness, details, and
timeliness of the disclosure while failing to eliminate any of the
complaints about conflicts.

People with good technical arguments make technical arguments.  Some
people who have lost technically wave their hands about conflicts of
interest.  Some people who have lost techncially and can't even find a
conflict would love to slow everything down and create a burden of
paperwork so they can then complain about nits in the paperwork, and
there will always be nits in the paperwork. Lets not give them that
pleasure.

> [email-masked]

Donald

PS: For real examples of the problems I suggest with this idea, see the
past proceedings of the FCC where radio broadcast licneses are being
decided between applicants. Its routine for applicants to hire
detectives to dig up any dirt they can on the other applicant's people
and then to argue that their application should be rejected because they
didn't reveal the dirt voluntarily in public filings with the FCC even
when, as is almost always the case, there is no regulation prohibiting
applicants with that particular dirt. Vague "complete" disclosure rules
are routinely used as weapons in this manner. Do we really want to
eliminate the privacy of all persons in responsible IETF positions?

======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Dec 2002 03:57:59 +0000

This thread is finally getting interesting.

> document is "too BIND9 specific".

What if (as in this case) it was in the past, and Olafur had no current
or prospective income riding on BIND9, but he did once work for a company
who did some subcontract work related to BIND9?  Would he still be tainted?

What if (as in this case) BIND9 is always released with a BSD-style license,
allowing unlimited derivative works without fee and no source code requirement
so long as the copyright holder (ISC) is held harmless and given credit?
Would someone who had derived, or might some day derive, income from such
an "open source" work be tainted as much as someone whose equity or patent
holdings stood to gain from their work or from a certain standards decision?
(I'm thinking of the IBM printing thing a few years ago.)
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:46:25 -0600

Thus spake <[email-masked]>:
> Personally, I'm OK with Olafur making money doing BIND.  I'm even
> OK on him possibly making more if the draft becomes an RFC in its
> current state.  I admit I've looked through RFC2026 and found
> nothing about disclosure of conflict of interest(*).

That Olafur has been paid for BIND work is obviously public knowledge, so no
disclosure is necessary.  Most, if not all, IETF and IESG members have some
conflict of interest due to past, present, or future employers. Thus, the
question at hand is if this disqualifies the IESG from making decisions
they've been tasked with making.  Pragmatically, how are we to find
competent people who _aren't_ tainted in some way?

IETF tradition (policy?) is that members are individuals and not
representatives of their employers; IMHO that implies that we are to trust
the professionalism of our members -- and especially the IESG -- to act in
the interests of the Internet community.

S

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:22:37 +0100

On Thursday 19 December 2002, at 10 h 3, 
Rick Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> representatives, 

Yes, it is written in RFC 3160 and in many papers about the IETF process. 
But we all know it is pure theory. Not many individuals can pay for the 
trip to Yokohama or Atlanta (and the time it takes to actually read and 
understand the issues). It is a company which decides who goes and what 
for. It is a company which organizes its IETF activity.

It reminds me of the discussion in high-level sports where people still 
pretend that some athletes are "amateurs". There are no longer amateurs 
in the IETF.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:26:06 -0500

> who did some subcontract work related to BIND9?  Would he still be tainted?

That's OK by me...

> (I'm thinking of the IBM printing thing a few years ago.)

I wasn't paying attention there - were the people involved in the IBM printing
thing open about the fact they stood to gain/lose money?  I remember that
during the IPng design, several router manufacturers were quite detailed about
their costs of producing routers that used fixed or variable length addresses,
and it's the rare working group where somebody doesn't say at least once "This
added feature is a crock because it'll cost my R&D people a bundle"... And I
consider that good and valid input to the discussion - if it's expensive, we
mau need to reconsider the design...

It's just submarine patents and submarine contracts/etc that irk me. ;)

/Valdis

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:22:37 +0100

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:16:04 +0000 (GMT)

> > I like that we have individuals at the ietf meetings rather than company

IETF participation allegedly does not require meeting attendance,
although keeping up without attending is increasingly hard.

You're more likely to find interested *individuals* and amateurs on
IETF mailing lists than attending IETF meetings; anyone at a meeting
should have an agenda beyond pure interest.

L.

> pretend that some athletes are "amateurs". There are no longer amateurs

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[email-masked]>